boycott-riaa.com - Article: Universal Music kicks off digital download plan

Universal Music kicks off digital download plan

Posted by Mike on November 20, 2002 at 12:33 PM (printer friendly)

http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?news_id=reu-n19294615&feed=reu&date=20021120
Wednesday November 20, 12:00 AM EST

By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES, Nov 20 (Reuters) - Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, on Wednesday announced it would make more than 43,000 song tracks available for download at retail outlets and music Web sites, opening a new front in the marketing of digital music.

The initiative is aimed at attracting fans who may want to buy songs or albums on a one-off basis online rather than through monthly Internet subscriptions, the alternative the major labels have offered to peer-to-peer song swapping services.

Universal Music, a unit of Vivendi Universal, said the downloads will be burnable to CD and transferable to secure portable devices. The digital tracks will be available for purchase by consumers in the U.S. for 99 cents for individual tracks and $9.99 for albums.

The digital downloads will be available through over 25 retailers and music sites, including Best Buy Co. Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc., MP3.com, Rolling Stone, Tower Records and others.

"This is a direct blow to the peer-to-peer services by providing consumers with a cheap and easy way to get a trusted file," said P.J. McNealy, analyst with GartnerG2.

The labels all attempted to sell limited digital downloads in the early days of their online efforts, but at about $2.99 or $3.99 a track or higher and with heavy restrictions.

McNealy said he expects the other major labels to wait and see how Universal fares before attempting a similar push.

Universal's downloading program follows on the heels of a spate of online licensing deals announced last week by members of the recording industry as the sector attempts to lure a fan base to their online products and away from popular, free, unauthorized peer-to-peer services like Morpheus and Kazaa, which it claims has eroded music sales.

Using technology from Liquid Audio Inc., music fans can buy tracks from the UMG digital catalog, including such artists as Eminem, Diana Krall, Jay-Z, Nelly, Shaggy, Shania Twain, Sheryl Crow, and U2.

The digital catalog includes current and catalog releases. Music fans can preview and purchase music tracks in both the Liquid Audio and Microsoft Corp. Windows Media formats.

Universal said it was kicking off the initiative by making the new single from superstar Mariah Carey available online before the release of her upcoming album.

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


Svensta	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 12:47 PM hmmmm, 99 cents a track is still about 15 bucks a full CD. I note they don't mention it's saveable as open media onto your hard drive (as in OGG or MP3) Sounds to me like this one is going to fail about as badly. They've defeated the "I gotta buy a full disc of crappy music for 2 good songs" problem, but none of the others. Keep trying, guys. And First Post :D

thumbtack	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 5:00 PM Doing away with the standard deductions is a great step forward, but really doesn't address the fundamental problem of getting an accurate count of copies sold. To apply the (Morris) Levy principle, "Nine percent of zero at wholesale is equal to twelve percent of zero at retail." As auditors for artists couldn't normally get to documentation about the number of free goods, or true packaging costs, removing these deductions reduces neither the amount of work an auditor must do nor does it increase the data to be made available to the auditor to determine an accurate sales count. The true transparency award will go to the first label that provides full manufacturing and shipping information, including returns, to an artist who requests it. That would do away with much of the need, and most of the expense, of auditing. The BMG plan just changes the color of the smoke and the size of the mirrors.

Expose	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 5:11 PM eminem the eminem show cd; $15. Dling the 20 tracks of it at $1 a track $20. SO it would be more expensive, and it isn't on a cd. Or if it ws $2 a track, it would be $40 for a $20 cd, and if it was $3 a track, it would be $60 for a $20 cd!! And at "meh" quality not even on a cd. I remember experimenting w/ pressplay, registering. When it told me to select my connection, it had bitrates next to them. On Cable/DSL, it had 96k mp3 next to it, which they advertize as cd quality. And you pay for it. This site has better music at higher quality for free. Or I could just use p2p, not pay a dime, and get a 256 or 320k version of the track. They will probably advertize 128k or even 96k as perfect cd quality. Man they piss me off! Play 96k on big speakers, tell me that's cd!

wattzz	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 6:01 PM it says 99 cents for individual tracks and $9.99 for albums. calm down

Radium-II	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 8:43 PM A step forward, but Liquid Audio?? 99c? I want at least 160k mp3 for half that price. I might consider spending 99c on tracks that are so rare, I can't even find them on p2p, but that's about it. But again, a better approach than taking everybody to court.

airider	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 10:06 PM It's a step forward. It's not perfect, at least as far as consumers are concerned, but the first small steps rarely are. I still loathe the costs of trying to get music these days, especially when I can see the costs of the media and the packaging first hand, but each new service that has come out has been a little more open and a little more catered to what consumers want. Are they "there" yet??? Absolutely not! Is it at least a move forward rather than a step back??? Absolutely. And as Radium-II said, at least they're (apparently) seeing past the "sue everyone until they behave" line they've had so far. When they drop their lawsuits against P2P, then I'll start to believe they are willing to give this a go.

Mediamaster	Date: November 20, 2002 @ 10:34 PM My question is if the files are mp3. I need a format that will play on all computers and most devices, otherwise, it's just not worth buying. Hail Mp3!!!

scottjw	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 2:09 AM \^/☺R�.

scottjw	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 2:09 AM Bah poo! Won't display cool characters.

Expose	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 7:49 AM dbpowerAMP can convert them to wav.

Expose	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 7:51 AM It's funny actually, MP3 after doing some research was developed in the late 80s, finished in the early 90s, and still devices don't support it :skeptical: . It didn't just pop outta thin air, it's been here a long time, just not nearly as widespread or used, or maybe it wasn't even available, I dunno I was about 5 or 6 years old when this site first came out :D

simoncowells...	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 8:34 AM wow thats realy neat

goldenpi	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 12:09 PM Of course you wont be able to buy mp3 legally from this thing. IT will be packaged in microsofts WMA format, which has the tripple disadvantages of being DRMed, propritary and difficult to transcode. WMA comes in two versions. Version two is cracked now, perfectly. Version one (which this will probably use due to low confidence in version two) hasn't yet been perfectly cracked, althrough the many variations on loopback attacks all work. WMDRM is the only full PC DRM system. The SDMI have designed one, but its so far vaporware. They made a spec, but noones implimented it. CPSA has designed an impressive looking setup for CE appliances, but has none practicially nothing on the PC, and hasn't even looked at the internet. So the format must be WMA, there just arn't any alternatives.

Expose	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 3:32 PM I always wanted to try flac. It's supposed to be the same exact thing as a wav except if the wav was 50 mb the flac file would be 30 mb (forgot the percent) lossless compression

horsefucker	Date: November 21, 2002 @ 9:32 PM Geeeeeee, I like mp3. I'm the lord.

Spwee	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 12:21 AM This is a direct blow to the peer-to-peer services by providing consumers with a cheap and easy way to get a trusted file," said P.J. McNealy, analyst with GartnerG2.

Spwee	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 12:22 AM why is it a blow? its a victory, the consumer is being heard and catered to

Svensta	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 8:44 AM nice to hear from the Spweester again, even if it means having to look at that damn Val Kilmer worship shrine he's got going. I just bought a 15 dollar fm receiver for my computer that comes bundled with mp3 recording software. I know it will be low quality, but then again, it's 99 cents per track cheaper than THIS idea. Let's see them foil that little number.

emek311	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 9:57 AM For all those who think that a whole album is going to cost you alot of money...i guess you stopped reading right after the article said 99 cents per song because directly after that it says 9.99 for a whole album.

kneo24	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 10:52 AM That's a whole album, but if you get a bunch of different songs that equate to a whole album, it will cost more. When it says whole album, it's not being very clear. I take it as an album from one artist, where those songs appear on that album, not a bunch songs from different artists kind of album.

kneo24	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 10:54 AM One question still comes to mind, what about the artists? Do they get any sort of compensation? Maybe it mentioned that in the article and I missed it... but it doesn't seem like they would have any real way of compensating an artist... all in all, just another scheme to get more money from people so they can line their greedy pockets.

Svensta	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 11:20 AM Thank you Kneo, you got the right idea. For an album's WORTH of music, you are out 14-16 bucks on average.

goldenpi	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 12:15 PM I have a radio reciever too. It involves a folded vertical dipole, expensive FM reciever and extigy external sound card. For quality, it cant be beat :-). Music cannot be secure as long as insecure distribution systems are used, and its going to take a long time to get rid of analog radio and CDs :-) Digital radio has recently been appearing. It would have been available years ago, but the labels wouldn't allow it. 9.99 for a whole album. p2p is still cheaper. And more convienient. Althrough this legal method will be faster, easier and consience-friendly the file you buy will be a WMA file, which means you can only play it using windows media player, and only on the PC you download it on. No playing it in the car, no taking it to a friends house. No reselling it when you get bored with that song. (thats probably intentional. And sos the car - could reduce radio exposure of latest big hit). No putting the file in your portable CD player or minidisc. No portable players at all. This is not convienience. Take a close look at pressplay. There is a monthly fee, and if you leave the service all your downloaded music is disabled. To be fair Pressplay does explain this clearly on the site. Anything similar here?

ThaCoyote	Date: November 22, 2002 @ 6:30 PM Brrr... what's liquid audio? I think it is savable (when purchasing) and streaming (for previewing). It's possible to burn the songs on CD, so it must be downloadable. Great step forward I think too... And the price is reason to think about, as long as the tracks are high quality. Too bad they won't be able in MP3 though :( Guess it scares them off, 'because of kazaa and morpheus.. Won't take long before Liquid audio files will be available through kazaa though.. ;)

goldenpi	Date: November 23, 2002 @ 6:28 AM Liquid audio...Yes, run a few searches on "a2b2wav.zip" :-). Its was a crack for the liquid audio protection system, but its been fixed now. There was an intresting threat to mp3.com because they posted an artical about it.

princess-angry	Date: November 23, 2002 @ 8:14 AM I hope that soemone has a better solution to all this...... I just wish it would be cheaper and more people would buy into it!!!! that's the key labels!!!!!

horsefucker	Date: November 23, 2002 @ 10:25 AM I would rather buy mp3 files than download them for free. But, the recording industry has not offered that yet (at least not extensively with many artists). Instead, they have copy protected options which won't play with Winamp or portable mp3 players. Also, it is very easy to defeat their copy protection even with standard hardware and software and limited knowledge.

Remye	Date: November 24, 2002 @ 9:21 AM did you read the ENTIRE article, or just the parts you wanted Sven? .99 a song OR 9.99 a cd. DUH. I'm guessing they've got a number that represents the average, like the AVERAGE album now has 12 tracks so a 12 track cd is 9.99. This is a step in the right direction, and some of the responses here show that there are indeed people who ARE about getting something for nothing, or more than they "want" to pay for. I own the eminem show, and of the 20 or so tracks, there are only about 10 that I like. So for me, while this isn't a _perfect_ solution, it does begin an effective form of compromise. As for the "strikes a blow against p2p..".. well.. I have to agree that this isn't a blow against anything. If anything, it's a victory for the boycotters, since they are now willing to (try) to put out stuff we (I) want to listen to (reasonable selection notwithstanding) at a price that we (I) might be willing to pay. Needs work, but it is a start.

kneo24	Date: November 24, 2002 @ 3:42 PM 9.99/.99 = 10 songs. As we all know some albums have so much more than 10 songs. If by album, they include the ones you mix yourself, you can only get 10 songs for that flat rate of 9.99. If you want more, you're going to have to pay more. On the other albums, the ones that we've always had to buy, you could be saving a lot of money, or be getting ripped off. I have some albums that only have 9 songs on them, and some with less. Why should I pay 9.99 for that? As you can see, it's not very clear on what it means. Also, where is this money going to? It doesn't specify. Remye, I think you've forgotten that we are fighting for the artists rights too, not just our own. Until I know where this money is going, I'm not buying into it.

kneo24	Date: November 24, 2002 @ 3:44 PM Another thing comes to mind, what if we want to get the latest album by our favorite band? If it's available in this way, people are probably going to get it like that. They would probably have to lower the cost of other ones in the store to the same price, 9.99 just to get them to sell. This actually seems like a positive aspect to things.

Remye	Date: November 25, 2002 @ 7:59 AM there ya go kneo.. and I agree with your point about where the money goes. Guess we'll have to see if the record companies can make everyone happy huh?